comprehensive planning for public health report was developed under the auspices of the planning and...

REPO

RT

Comprehensive Planning for Public Health

This report highlights the results of a web-based survey used to identify draft and

adopted comprehensive and sustainability plans that explicitly address public health.

Results of the Planning and Community Health Research Center Survey

planning.org/nationalcenters/health/PLANNING & COMMUNITY HEALTH RESEARCH CENTER

http://planning.org/nationalcenters/health/

This report was developed under the auspices of the Planning and Community Health Research Center, one of APA’s National Centers for Planning. The Center engages in research, policy, outreach, and education to advance healthy communities through planning. For more information, visit www.planning.org/nationalcenters/health. APA’s National Centers for Planning conduct policy-relevant research and education involving community health, natural and man-made hazards, and green communities. For more detail, visit www.planning.org/nationalcenters.

Funding for this project was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This report was designed and authored by Kimberley Hodgson, aicp, manager of APA’s Planning and Community Health Research Center. She also served as the project manager.

The author thanks other individuals who contributed to or supported this project: Bill Klein, aicp, Dee Merriam, Daniel Rodriguez, Anna Haines, Ann Forsyth, Nisha Botchwey, Greg Vernon, Ryan Kraske, and John Reinhardt, aicp.

March 2011

http://www.planning.org/nationalcenters/health

http://www.planning.org/nationalcenters

Table of Contents4 Current Practice

5 Survey Background

5 Survey Respondents

6 Summary of Findings

7 Results of the Survey

7 PLANNING FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

7 PUBLIC HEALTH TOPICS7 Figure 1. Draft or adopted comprehensive plans that explicitly address public health

7 Figure 2. Draft or adopted sustainability plans that explicitly address public health

8 Map 1

9 Map 2

10 LOCATION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH COMPONENT IN THE PLAN10 Table 1. Top 10 most sited public health topics in comprehensive plans

10 Table 2. Top 10 most sited public health topics in sustainability plans

11 Table 3. Public health topics explicitly addressed in adopted comprehensive or sustainability plans, by group

11 Table 4. Jurisdictions addressing at least 50% of the general public health topics in their adopted comprehensive plan

12 Figure 3. Public health topics explicitly addressed in the comprehensive plans

13 Figure 4. Public health topics explicitly addressed in the sustainability plans

14 Table 5. All identified jurisdictions addressing general public health topics in their adopted sustainability plan

15 PUBLIC HEALTH DATA & DATA COLLECTION TOOLS15 Table 6a. Adopted comprehensive plans containing a stand-alone health element

15 Table 6b. Draft comprehensive plans containing a stand-alone health element

15 Table 7. Adopted sustainability plans containing a stand-alone health element

16 LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS

16 SUCCESSES & CHALLENGES

16 IMPACT OF THE PLAN ON PUBLIC HEALTH16 Figure 5. Location of public health components in different elements of the comprehensive plan

17 Table 8. Public health assessment or data collection tools used in the development of public health related goals, objectives or policies

18 Figure 6. Public health data used in the development of public health related goals, objectives or policies in comprehensive plans

19 Figure 7. Public health data used in the development of public health related goals, objectives or policies in sustainability plans

20 Figure 8. Level of Involvement of groups or government agencies in the development of the public health components of the comprehensive plan

21 Figure 9. Level of Involvement of groups or government agencies in the development of the public health components of the sustainability plan

22 Table 9. Reasons for including public health

22 Table 10. Barriers to including public health

23 Next Steps

24 APPENDIX A. Regional geographic breakdown of adopted comprehensive and sustainability plans

28 APPENDIX B. Jurisdictions explicitly addressing 50% or more public health topics in the comprehensive plan

29 APPENDIX C. Public health topics explicitly addressed in comprehensive plan

45 APPENDIX D. Public health topics explicitly addressed in sustainability plan

4American Planning Association | Comprehensive Planning for Public Health: Survey Results

Comprehensive Planning for Public HealthResults of the Planning and Community Health Research Center Survey

Current PracticeLocal governments prepare a variety of plans that are designed to address social, economic and environmental opportunities and problems. The comprehensive plan establishes a 20-30 year blueprint for the long-range future of the entire community and guides local policy decisions. It makes explicit the dependencies and inter-relationships that exist between topics such as housing, transportation, land use, economic development and environmental protection. Also referred to as the general plan or master plan, the comprehensive plan is typically updated every 10-15 years and consists of mandatory elements (as required by state enabling legislation) and voluntary elements (not required by state legislation but important to addressing emerging needs and issues of a community).

The process of creating a comprehensive plan typically begins with an analysis of existing social, economic and environmental conditions in the community, followed by a public visioning process, the development of goals and objectives, and the development of specific policies and programs to meet the needs and improve the future of a community.

While not all local governments across the U.S. are required to develop a comprehensive plan, many are be-ginning to see the connections between comprehensive planning and public health. Mandatory elements such as housing, transportation and land use, can impact food access, physical activity, housing choice and affordability, school locations, social equity, transportation choices, clean water and air, and more. Several strategies have been used by local governments across the country to plan for health. Some local governments create a stand-alone, voluntary health element in the comprehensive plan, while others incorporate health-related goals and policies into existing mandatory elements of the plan.

A new generation of comprehensive plans—sustainabil-ity plans—are also emerging in communities across the

U.S. to expand the social, economic and environmental components of the plan and to address new and emerg-ing issues, such as climate change, health equity, and community-based food systems. While not required by state statute, the sustainability plan is often adopted by the local government and plays an important role in local policy reform.

Considering the impact of the comprehensive plan (including the new generation of sustainability plans) on social, economic and environmental conditions, there is a need to explore the role comprehensive and sustain-ability plans play in identifying local health issues and promoting the long-term health of a community.

The American Planning Association’s Planning and Com-munity Health Research Center (APA), with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is con-ducting a multi-phase research study to identify, evaluate and analyze the plan-making processes and health goals, objectives and policies of local comprehensive and sus-tainability plans developed and adopted by communities across the U.S.

As part of the first phase of this project, APA developed a national, web-based survey to:

• Identify draft and adopted comprehensive and sustainability plans that explicitly include public health related goals, objectives, and policies;

• Inventory the public health topics included in the plans;

• Identify the opportunities and barriers faced by each community in the development and adop-tion of each of these goals, objectives or policies; and,

• Assess the current state of planning for public health in local governments across the country.


Survey Respondents

The first round of data collection yielded 388 responses and the second round 774 responses, for a total of 1162 initial responses. Because 272 of the initial responses represented an entity other than a local government, such as a regional planning agency, state government or development district (116 responses); or included dupli-cate information, where multiple entries were submitted for a single local government (156 responses), they were removed from the data set. The final number of valid responses was 890.

Of the 890 respondents, more than half work for a city government (54.9%), 13.3% work for a county govern-ment, 12.1% work for a town, and the remaining respon-dents either work for a township, village, tribe, regional planning agency, or combined city-county government. The majority of respondents work for a medium-sized jurisdiction (35.6% for a jurisdiction with a population of 10,000 to 49,999 and 19.4% for a jurisdiction with a popu-lation of 50,000 to 149,999 people, respectively). About 12% work for a jurisdiction with a population of 2,500 to 9,999; 9% for a jurisdiction with 150,000 to 499,999; and 8% for a jurisdiction with 500,000 or more people.

The majority of respondents (65.7%) were public-sector planners; 11.0% were appointed officials; 4,8% were public health professionals, urban designers, architects or another type of professional; 1.6% were private-sector planners; and less than 1% were either elected officials, or community advocates. About 16% of respondents did not provide a response.

Approximately 81% indicated planning as an area of professional expertise; 25.6% economic development; 18.8% transportation; 16.4% housing; and 10.2% parks and recreation (respondents could select more than one response to this question). About 13% reported another type of professional expertise, such as sustainability, environmental planning, community development, urban design, historic preservation, zoning, natural resources, energy, or agriculture. Less than 2% indicated public health as an area of professional expertise.

All but 2 states were represented by the respondents: North Dakota and South Dakota.

Survey Background

The APA survey targeted planning directors and other local planning department staff engaged in long-range planning at the local government level. The survey was intended as an information-gathering tool to inform further case-study research and help develop a policy report that will feature tools and strategies planning and health professionals can use to integrate health into the plan-making process.

APA conducted two rounds of web-based data collec-tion. On June 30, 2010, APA sent a direct email (with a link to the web-based survey) to all planning directors in its membership database, approximately 1020 members. Because only 388 people (about 38%) responded and completed the survey, APA decided to conduct a second round of data collection. On August 10, 2010, APA sent an email invitation to the listservs of all 50 APA State Chap-ters, which yielded a greater response.


Summary of FindingsPublic Health

• Approximately 27% of all respondents reported that their jurisdiction’s officially adopted compre-hensive plan explicitly addresses public health; while only 3% of all respondents reported that their jurisdiction’s officially adopted sustainabil-ity plan explicitly addresses public health.

• The top 10 most cited public health topics in the identified comprehensive plans include: recre-ation, public safety, clean water, active transpor-tation, clean air, emergency preparedness, active living, physical activity, environmental health, and aging.

• The top 10 most cited public health topics in the identified sustainability plans include: active transportation, clean air, clean water, climate change, active living, physical activity, recreation, environmental health, food access, and public safety.

Location of the Public Health Topics in the Plan• The majority of respondents noted that public

health topics were addressed in the land use, transportation, recreation and open space, or bicycle and pedestrian elements of the compre-hensive plan.

• Twenty-three respondents reported that their jurisdiction’s adopted comprehensive plan con-tains a stand-alone health element, of which 8 are from jurisdictions in California, 2 from Minne-sota, 2 from Oregon, 2 from Alaska, 2 from Texas, and the rest from 10 other states.

Public Health Data & Data Collection Tools• Of the adopted comprehensive plans that explic-

itly address health, the majority of respondents indicated that they did not use any of type of public health assessment or data collection tools to identify public health related problems in the community (23.9%) or that they didn’t know if such tools were used (23%). Only 9 respon-dents (3.7%) indicated that they used the health impact assessment as a tool in the identification of public health problems in the community. The most commonly used types of tools included the environmental impact assessment, economic feasibility study, and the brownfields study.

• Of the adopted sustainability plans that explic-itly address health, about 30% of respondents indicated that a climate change study was used to identify public health related problems in the community; 26% of respondents indicated that an environmental impact assessment was used; 22.2% brownfields assessment; 22.2% energy analysis; and 18.5% economic feasibility study.

Level of Involvement of Stakeholders • Respondents reported that beyond the local

planning agency, the most involved groups or government agencies in the development of the public health components of the adopted com-prehensive plan and sustainability plans were the local planning commission and community residents, and the local office of sustainability, community based organizations, and local environmental planning agency, respectively. On average, local health departments were not in-volved or had little involvement in the develop-ment of the public health components for both comprehensive and sustainability plans.

Successes & Challenges• According to respondents for both the adopted

comprehensive and sustainability plans, the top two reasons for including public health into the comprehensive plan or sustainability plan were: community support (51.4% and 51.9%, respec-tively), and community awareness (47.3% and 44.4%, respectively).

• The top two barriers were lack of local govern-ment funding (22.2% for comprehensive plans and 33.3% for sustainability plans) and lack of state government funding (18.9% and 29.6%, respectively).

Impact of the Plan on Public Health • About 31% of respondents reported that the

public health related goals, objectives and poli-cies in the adopted comprehensive plan have had positive impacts or made positive improve-ments to the community, including increased pedestrian/bicycle focus in planning decisions, increased recreation opportunities, increased alternative transportation options, and other issues.

• Over one-third of respondents (40.7%) reported that the public health related goals, objectives and policies in the adopted sustainability plan have had positive impacts on public health in their jurisdiction or raised awareness of public health issues, such as increased community gardening, improved sustainability practices, for-mation of a sustainability committee to promote active living and health eating, and encouraged alternative transportation and green building practices.


Results of the SurveyPLANNING FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

Most of the respondents (95% or 845) indicated that their jurisdiction had either a draft or adopted comprehensive plan; however only 260 (or 30.7%) of these respondents indicated that their comprehensive plan explicitly ad-dresses public health (see Figure 1). Map 1 (see page 8) provides an overview of the geographic spread of these municipalities and counties. Of the identified comprehen-sive plans with public health components, 93.5% (243) have been officially adopted by the local government. (Note: These 243 respondents will be referred to collec-tively as the selected comprehensive plan (CP) respon-dents.)

Less than one quarter of the respondents (15.8% or 140) indicated that their jurisdiction had either a draft of adopted sustainability plan; and only 51 (or 36.4%) of these respondents indicated that their sustainability plan explicitly addresses public health (see Figure 2). Map 2 (see page 9) provides an overview of the geographic spread of these municipalities and counties. Of the identi-fied sustainability plans with public health components, 52.9% (27) have been officially adopted by the local government. (Note: These 27 respondents will be referred to collectively as the selected sustainability plan (SP) respondents.)

A regional geographic breakdown of all the adopted comprehensive and sustainability plans can be found in Appendix A (see page 24-27).

PUBLIC HEALTH TOPICS

To assess the types of public health topics explicitly ad-dressed by comprehensive or sustainability plans, the sur-vey asked selected CP and SP respondents to identify the number and type of public health topics included in the plan. Respondents could choose 1 or more topics from a list of 31 general public health topics. More than half of selected CP respondents indicated that their jurisdiction’s adopted comprehensive plan explicitly addresses recre-ation, public safety, clean water, active transportation, or clean air (see Table 1, page 10).

Less than 10% of selected CP respondents noted that their jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan explicitly ad-dresses obesity prevention, social capital, mental health, chronic disease, food security, health disparities, nutri-tion, clinical services, infectious disease, food safety or injury prevention (see Figure 3, page 12).

More than half of selected SP respondents indicated that their jurisdiction’s plan explicitly addresses active trans-

Figure 1. Does your jurisdiction’s draft or adopted comprehensive plan contain explicit goals, objectives or poli-

cies that address public health? (n=845)

26031%

58569%

Yes

No

5136%

8964%

Yes

No

Figure 1. Does your jurisdiction’s draft or adopted sustainability plan contain explicit goals, objectives or poli-

cies that address public health? (n=140)


0 250 500 750 1,000125

Miles

8

Comprehensive plans that explicitly address public health

Atlantic Ocean

PacificOcean

Hawaii

Alaska

0 500 1,000250

Miles

0 200 400100

Miles

Legend

Adopted

Draft

Map 1


0 250 500 750 1,000125

Miles

8

Sustainability plans that explicitly addresses public health

Atlantic Ocean

PacificOcean

Hawaii

Alaska

0 500 1,000250

Miles

0 200 400100

Miles

Legend

Adopted

Draft

Map 2


portation, clean air, clean water, climate change, active living, physical activity or recreation (see Table 2).

Less than 10% of selected SP respondents noted that their jurisdiction’s sustainability plan explicitly addresses health disparities, chronic disease, infectious disease, injury, obesity, or clinical services (see Figure 4, page 13).

A greater percentage of adopted sustainability plans than adopted comprehensive plans address active living relat-ed topics (Group A, 65.7% versus 57.1%), environmental health related topics (Group C, 46.4% versus 36.7%), cli-mate related topics (Group D, 42.6% versus 34.4%), food and nutrition related topics (Group E, 22.2% versus 8.7%), and social health related topics (35.2% versus12.6%) (see Table 3, page 11). However a greater percentage of adopted comprehensive plans than adopted sustainabil-ity plans address chronic disease, health care, and safety related topics (see Table 3, page 11).

Only 1 respondent (Omaha, NE) reported that their jurisdiction’s adopted comprehensive plan explicitly addresses all of the 31 public health topics. Respondents from Oneida Nation, WI; Alachua County, FL; Austin, TX; Sacramento, CA; and Marin County, CA reported that their jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan explicitly addresses between 80 and 90% of the topics (see Table 4, page 11). (For a list of the top 17 jurisdictions, by number of topics addressed, see Appendix B, page 28. For a list of all juris-dictions, see Appendix C, page 29-44.)

Only 2 respondents (Oneida Nation, WI and Raleigh, NC) reported that their jurisdiction’s adopted sustainability plan explicitly addresses at least 50% of the public health topics. (For a list of all jurisdictions, by number of topics addressed, see Appendix D, page 45-46.)

Twenty-eight respondents indicated that their jurisdic-tion’s adopted comprehensive plan explicitly addresses public health, but none of the 31 general public health topics listed in the survey. And, two respondents indi-cated that their jurisdiction’s adopted sustainability plan explicitly addresses public health, but none of the 31 gen-eral public health topics listed in the survey: Albany, NY and Huntington County, IN (see Table 5, page 14).

LOCATION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH TOPICS IN THE PLAN

The survey also asked respondents to report whether or not their jurisdiction’s adopted comprehensive plan contains a stand-alone health element. We identified 23 adopted and 4 draft comprehensive plans that contain a stand-alone health element, of which 8 are from jurisdic-tions in California, 2 from Minnesota, 2 from Oregon, 2

TopicNumber of

RespondentsPercent of

Respondents

Recreation 183 75.3%

Public Safety 168 69.1%

Clean Water 165 67.9%

Active Transportation 161 66.3%

Clean Air 140 57.6%

Emergency Preparedness 111 45.7%

Active Living 107 44.0%

Physical Activity 104 42.8%

Environmental Health 95 39.1%

Aging 82 33.7%

Table 1. Top 10 most cited public health topics in comprehensive plans

TopicNumber of

RespondentsPercent of

Respondents

Active Transportation 23 85.2%

Clean Air 22 81.5%

Clean Water 21 77.8%

Climate Change 17 63.0%

Active Living 16 59.3%

Physical Activity 16 59.3%

Recreation 16 59.3%

Environmental Health 13 48.1%

Food Access 12 44.4%

Public Safety 10 37.0%

Table 2. Top 10 most cited public health topics in sustainability plans

*Respondents were able to select more than one response.



Table 3. Public health topics explicitly addressed in adopted comprehensive or sustainability plans, by group

GroupComprehensive Plans

% of RespondentsSustainability Plans

% of Respondents

A. ACTIVE LIVING(active living, active transportation, physical activity, recreation)

57.1% 65.7%

B. CHRONIC DISEASE(chronic disease prevention, health disparities, obesity prevention)

6.7% 4.9%

C. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH(brownfields, clean air, clean water, environmental health, environmental justice, toxic exposures)

36.7% 46.3%

D. CLIMATE(climate change, emergency preparedness)

34.4% 42.6%

E. FOOD & NUTRITION(food access, food safety, food security, healthy eating, nutrition)

8.7% 22.2%

F. HEALTH CARE(aging, clinical services, healthy homes, health services, human services, mental health)

18.9% 14.8%

G. SOCIAL HEALTH(social capital, social equity)

12.6% 35.2%

H. SAFETY(injury prevention, public safety)

35.8% 20.4%

Table 4. Jurisdictions addressing at least 50% of the general public health topics in their adopted comprehensive plan

Jurisdiction StateNumber of Public

Health TopicsPercent of Public

Health Topics

Omaha NE 31 100.0%

Oneida Nation* WI 28 90.3%

Alachua County* FL 27 87.1%

Austin* TX 27 87.1%

Sacramento City* CA 27 87.1%

Marin County* CA 25 80.6%

Easton* PA 23 74.2%

Kings County* CA 22 71.0%

South Gate* CA 22 71.0%

Dona Ana County NM 21 67.7%

North Miami FL 21 67.7%

Baltimore County* MD 20 64.5%

San Jose CA 19 61.3%

King County WA 17 54.8%

Nassau County FL 17 54.8%

San Diego City CA 17 54.8%

St. Louis Park* MN 17 54.8%

Chico CA 16 51.6%

Lycoming County PA 16 51.6%

* Comprehensive plan contains a stand-alone health element.


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Figure 3. Public health topics explicitly addressed in the comprehensive plans



0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Figure 4. Public health topics explicitly addressed in the sustainability plans



Table 5. All identified jurisdictions addressing general public health topics in their adopted sustainability plan

Jurisdiction StateNumber of Public

Health TopicsPercent of Public

Health Topics

Oneida Nation WI 25 80.6%

Raleigh NC 16 51.6%

Burlington VT 15 48.4%

Mansfield CT 15 48.4%

San Francisco CA 15 48.4%

Grand Rapids MI 14 45.2%

Henderson NV 14 45.2%

Philadelphia PA 14 45.2%

Keene NH 12 38.7%

Cupertino CA 11 35.5%

Decatur City GA 11 35.5%

Multnomah County OR 11 35.5%

Sacramento City CA 11 35.5%

Baltimore City MD 10 32.3%

New York City NY 10 32.3%

West Windsor NJ 9 29.0%

Hayward CA 8 25.8%

Amberley Village OH 7 22.6%

Hillsborough Township NJ 7 22.6%

Roseville CA 7 22.6%

Naples City UT 5 16.1%

Easton PA 3 9.7%

San Carlos CA 3 9.7%

San Rafael CA 3 9.7%

Lake County IL 2 6.5%

Albany NY 0 0.0%

Huntington County IN 0 0.0%


from Alaska, 2 from Texas, and the rest from 10 other states (see Table 6a and 6b).

The majority of selected CP respondents noted that the public health topics were addressed in the land use, transportation, recreation and open space, or bicycle and pedestrian elements of the comprehensive plan (see Figure 5, page 16).

Only 5 respondents indicated that their jurisdiction’s adopted sustainability plan includes a stand-alone health element (see Table 7).

PUBLIC HEALTH DATA & DATA COLLECTION TOOLS

The survey asked what types of local public health data (and associated data collection tools) were used in the development of the public health related goals, objec-tives or policies.

The majority of selected CP respondents indicated that they did not use any public health assessment or data collection tools to identify public health related problems in the community (23.9%) or that they didn’t know if such tools were used (23%). The most commonly used types of tools included the environmental impact assessment, economic feasibility study, and the brownfields study. Less than 4% of respondents indicated that they used the health impact assessment as a tool in the identifica-tion of public health problems in the community (see Table 8, page 17). Other types of tools used, that weren’t mentioned in the survey, included community meetings, bikeability and walkability audits, quality of life surveys, and state health department data.

Whereas, selected SP respondents indicated that several different assessments were used. About 30% of used some type of a climate change study to identify public health related problems in the community; 26% used an environmental impact assessment; 22.2% brownfields assessment; 22.2% energy analysis; and 18.5% economic feasibility study. Only one selected SP respondent indicat-ed that the community health assessment was used as a tool in the identification of public health problems in the community (see Table 8, page 17). Other types of tools used, that weren’t mentioned in the survey, included spatial analyses of residential proximity to grocery stores, and information compiled from other community plans.

Most selected CP respondents indicated that they did not use any of the listed local public health data in the formation of the comprehensive plan’s public health components (31.3%) or that they didn’t know if local public health data was used (23.9%). The most commonly used data included housing conditions (20.2%), water quality (20.2%), air quality (18.5%), and pedestrian and/

Table 6a. Adopted comprehensive plans containing a stand-alone health element

Jurisdiction State

Alachua County FL

Aleknagik AK

Austin TX

Baltimore County MD

Bar Harbor ME

Easton PA

Fort Worth TX

Grand Rapids MI

Hollister CA

Kings County CA

Klamath Falls OR

Marin County CA

Mashatucket Pequot Tribal Nation CT

Oneida Nation WI

Ottawa KS

Placer County CA

Sacramento City CA

Scott County MN

South Bend OR

South Gate CA

St. Louis Park MN

Tioga County NY

Wilsonville OR

Table 7. Adopted sustainability plans containing a stand-alone health element

Jurisdiction State

Amberley Village OH

Henderson NV

Oneida Nation WI

Sacramento CA

San Francisco CA

Table 6b. Draft comprehensive plans containing a stand-alone health element

Jurisdiction State

Dillingham AK

Keene NH

National City CA

Richmond CA


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Figure 5. Location of public health components in different elements of the comprehensive plan


or bicyclist injuries and fatalities (16.5%) data. Only 7.8% of respondents indicated that physical activity data was used in the development of the public health compo-nents, 6.2% food access data, 6.2% health impact assess-ment data, 4.5% chronic disease data, 3.3% respiratory disease data, and 1.6% food security data (see Figure 6, page 18). Other types of data used, that wasn’t men-tioned in the survey, included noise pollution data, U.S. Census data, tree canopy data, and pedestrian/bicycle/vehicle crash data.

The most widely used public health data in the develop-ment of sustainability plans’ public health components was air quality data (25.9%) environmental impact as-sessment data (22.2%), and water quality data (22.2%). Almost 20% of respondents indicated that food access and distribution data was used in the development of the public health components of their jurisdiction’s sustain-ability plan (see Figure 7, page 19).

LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS

On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = very low involvement to 5 = very high involvement), the survey asked respondents to assess the level of involvement of specific groups or government agencies in the development of the public health components of the comprehensive plan and the

sustainability plan. Of the adopted comprehensive plans, the most involved groups or government agencies were: the local planning agency or department (3.2 average level of involvement), local planning commission (2.9), and community residents (2.5) (see Figure 8, page 20). Of the adopted sustainability plans, the most involved groups or government agencies were: the local planning agency (2.9 average level of involvement), followed by the local office of sustainability, community based orga-nizations, and local environmental planning agency (all 2.1 average level of involvement (see Figure 9, page 21). For both comprehensive plans and sustainability plans, local health departments were not involved or had little involvement in the development of the public health components.

SUCCESSES & CHALLENGES

Finally, respondents were asked to identify the oppor-tunities and barriers they encountered in their com-munity to integrating public health components in the comprehensive plan and sustainability plan. According to selected CP and SP respondents, the top two reasons for including public health into the comprehensive or sustainability plan were: community support (51.4% and 51.9%, respectively), and community awareness (47.3% and 44.4%, respectively) (see Table 9, page 22). Several se-


Table 8. Public health assessment or data collection tools used in the development of public health related goals, objectives or policies

Tool Comprehensive Plans Sustainability Plans

# of respondents

% of respondents*

# of respondents

% of respondents*

Agricultural resource assessment 33 13.6% 3 11.1%

Brownfields assessment 41 16.9% 6 22.2%

Climate change study 20 8.2% 8 29.6%

Community food assessment 14 5.8% 3 11.1%

Community health assessment 32 13.2% 1 3.7%

Economic feasibility study 44 18.1% 5 18.5%

Energy analysis 25 10.3% 6 22.2%

Environmental impact assessment 54 22.2% 7 25.9%

Health impact assessment 9 3.7% 3 11.1%

Don’t know 56 23.0% 7 25.9%

None of the above 58 23.9% 2 7.4%

Other 14 5.8% 3 11.1%


lected respondents from California and Florida indicated that their jurisdictions were required to include public health components into the comprehensive plan be-cause of a state mandate. Other selected CP respondents reported that grant funding enabled their jurisdictions to integrate public health components into the comprehen-sive plan. The top two barriers were lack of local govern-ment funding (22.2% for comprehensive plans and 33.3% for sustainability plans) and lack of state government funding (18.9% and 29.6%, respectively). Other important barriers for selected CP respondents included lack of political awareness (18.5%), lack of community awareness (16.9%), and lack of federal government funding (15.6%); and for selected SP respondents, lack of federal govern-ment funding (29.6%), lack of government staff resources (18.5%), and lack of foundation funding (18.5%) (see Table 10, page 22).

IMPACT OF THE PLAN ON PUBLIC HEALTH

About 31% of selected CP respondents reported that the public health related goals, objectives and policies in the adopted comprehensive plan have had positive impacts or made positive improvements to the com-munity, including increased pedestrian/bicycle focus in planning decisions, increased recreation opportunities, increased alternative transportation options, and other issues. About 7% of selected CP respondents reported that the public health components of the comprehensive plan raised community awareness about bicycle trails, obesity, active transportation, water quality, social equity, walkability, general connections between health, land

use and transportation, and other issues. A few reported that the health components increased healthy food ac-cess, increased transit-oriented development, enhanced preparation for emergencies or disasters, and improved city cleanliness. Similarily, only a few, selected CP re-spondents reported that the health components in their jurisdiction’s adopted comprehensive plan had very little or no impact on public health in the community.

Over one-third of selected SP respondents (40.7%) reported that the public health related goals, objectives and policies in the adopted sustainability plan have had positive impacts on public health in their jurisdic-tion or raised awareness of public health issues, such as increased community gardening, improved sustainability practices, formation of a sustainability committee to promote active living and health eating, and encouraged alternative transportation and green building practices. Still, 30% percent of selected SP respondents reported that the impacts are too early to tell. Only one selected SP respondent indicated that the public health components had no impact on public health in their jurisdiction.


Figure 6. Public health data used in the development of public health related goals, objectives or policies in comprehensive plans


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%


Figure 7. Public health data used in the development of public health related goals, objectives or policies in sustainability plans


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%


Figure 8. Level of Involvement of groups or government agencies in the development of the public health components of the comprehensive plan


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5


Figure 9. Level of Involvement of groups or government agencies in the development of the public health components of the sustainability plan


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5


Table 9. Reasons for including public health

Reason

Comprehensive Plans Sustainability Plans

# of respondents

% of respondents*

# of respondents

% of respondents*

Community awareness 115 47.3% 12 44.4%

Community support 125 51.4% 14 51.9%

Federal government funding 10 4.1% 1 3.7%

Foundation funding 9 3.7% 0 0.0%

Government staff resources 59 24.3% 8 29.6%

Local government funding 25 10.3% 5 18.5%

Political awareness 72 29.6% 11 40.7%

Political support 75 30.9% 10 37.0%

State government funding 16 6.6% 1 3.7%

Support by the local health department 61 25.1% 4 14.8%

Support by the local planning agency 109 44.9% 11 40.7%

Don’t know 23 9.5% 4 14.8%


Other 23 9.5% 1 3.7%


Table 10. Barriers to including public health

Barrier

Comprehensive Plans Sustainability Plans

# of respondents

% of respondents*

# of respondents

% of respondents*

Lack of community awareness 41 16.9% 2 7.4%

Lack of community support 13 5.3% 1 3.7%

Lack of federal government funding 38 15.6% 8 29.6%

Lack of foundation funding 23 9.5% 5 18.5%

Lack of government staff resources 39 16.0% 5 18.5%

Lack of local government funding 54 22.2% 9 33.3%

Lack of political awareness 45 18.5% 1 3.7%

Lack of political support 24 9.9% 2 7.4%

Lack of state government funding 46 18.9% 8 29.6%

Lack of support by the local health department 11 4.5% 1 3.7%

Lack of support by the local planning agency 5 2.1% 0 0.0%

Don’t know 44 18.1% 5 18.5%


Other 15 6.2% 2 7.4%



Next Steps

From the plans identified in this survey, APA will select a sample of plans that have been adopted by city or county ordinance for further evaluation. Using an evaluation tool (based on a compiled set of model health goals, objec-tives and policies), each plan will be evaluated and given a score based on:

• The presence or absence of specified health topics;

• The comprehensiveness of each goal, objective or policy;

• The specificity and action orientation of each goal and policy;

• The implementation strategies specified by the plan, and;

• The evaluation methods used to assess the ef-fectiveness of the public health policies outlined in the plan.

Results from the survey and evaluations will be synthe-sized into a policy report. The report will provide:

• A detailed analysis of the results of the survey and the plan evaluation;

• A list of categories, types and a sample of ex-cerpts of public health related goals and policies included in the evaluated plans; and

• Model public health plan language.

The evaluation portion of this research project and policy report are expected to be completed by October 2011.


Western states with adopted comprehensive plans & sustainabilityplans that excplicitly address public health

8

PacificOcean

0 250 500125

Miles

Legend

Comprehensive

Sustainability

Both

0 250 500125

Miles

Hawaii

0 500 1,000250

Miles

Alaska

APPENDIX A. Regional geographic breakdown of adopted comprehensive and sustainability plans


0 250 500125

Miles

Central states with adopted comprehensive plans & sustainabilityplans that excplicitly address public health

8 Legend

Comprehensive

Sustainability

Both

APPENDIX A (cont.)


Northern states with adopted comprehensive plans & sustainabilityplans that excplicitly address public health

0 250 500125

Miles

8

Atlantic Ocean

Legend

Comprehensive

Sustainability

Both

APPENDIX A (cont.)


0 250 500125

Miles

Southern states with adopted comprehensive plans & sustainability plans that explicitly address public health

Legend

Comprehensive

Sustainability

Both

Atlantic Ocean

8

APPENDIX A (cont.)


NE WI CA FL TX CA PA CA CA FL NM MD CA CA FL MN WA

Om

aha

On

eid

a N

atio

n*

Sacr

amen

to C

ity*

Ala

chu

a C

ou

nty

*

Au

stin

*

Mar

in C

ou

nty

*

East

on

*

Kin

gs

Co

un

ty*

Sou

th G

ate*

No

rth

Mia

mi

Do

na

An

a C

ou

nty

Bal

tim

ore

Co

un

ty*

San

Jo

se

San

Die

go

Cit

y

Nas

sau

Co

un

ty

St. L

ou

is P

ark*

Kin

g C

ou

nty

ACTIVE LIVING

Active Living * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Active Transportation * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Physical Activity * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Recreation * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE

Chronic Disease Prevention * * * * * * * * * * *

Health Disparities * * * * * * *

Obesity Prevention * * * * * * * *

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Brownfields * * * * * * * * * * * *

Clean Air * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Environmental Health * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Environmental Justice * * * * * * * * * * * *

Toxic Exposures * * * * * * * * * * *

CLIMATE

Climate Change * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Emergency Preparedness * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access * * * * * * * * * * * *

Food Safety * * * * * * *

Food Security * * * * * * * * * *

Healthy Eating * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Nutrition * * * * * * * * * * *

HEALTH & HEALTH CARE

Aging * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Clinical Services * * * * * *

Healthy Homes * * * * * * * * * * * *

Health Services * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Human Services * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Infectious Disease Prevention * * * * * * * * * *

Mental Health * * * * * * * * *

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital * * * * * * * * *

Social Equity * * * * * * * * * * * * *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention * *

Public Safety * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Number of Topics 31 28 27 27 27 25 23 22 22 21 21 20 19 17 17 17 17

% of Topics 100% 90% 87% 87% 87% 81% 74% 71% 71% 68% 68% 65% 61% 55% 55% 55% 55%

APPENDIX B. Jurisdictions explicitly addressing 50% or more public health topics in the comprehensive plan


AK AL AR AZ CA

Ale

kn

agik

*

Bet

hel

Au

bu

rn

Shel

by

Co

un

ty

Faye

ttev

ille

Gre

enw

oo

d

No

rth

Lit

tle

Ro

ck

El M

irag

e

Gila

Ben

d

Gle

nd

ale

Peo

ria

Qu

een

Cre

ek

An

der

son

Azu

sa

Bak

ersfi

eld

Ber

kele

y

ACTIVE LIVING

Active Living * * * * * * *

Active Transportation * * * * * * *

Physical Activity * * * * *

Recreation * * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE

Chronic Disease Prevention

Health Disparities

Obesity Prevention *


Brownfields * * * *

Clean Air * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * *

Environmental Health * * * * * *

Environmental Justice * *

Toxic Exposures *

CLIMATE

Climate Change *

Emergency Preparedness * * * * * * *

FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access *

Food Safety

Food Security

Healthy Eating *

Nutrition


Aging * * * *

Clinical Services *

Healthy Homes *

Health Services * * * *

Human Services * * *

Infectious Disease Prevention

Mental Health

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital

Social Equity

SAFETY

Injury Prevention

Public Safety * * * * * * * * * * *

Number of Topics 11 4 10 0 0 8 7 0 12 7 10 6 9 0 0

% of Topics 29% 35% 13% 32% 0% 0% 26% 23% 0% 39% 23% 32% 19% 29% 0% 0%

APPENDIX C. Public health topics explicitly addressed in comprehensive plan


CA (cont.)

Bri

sban

e

Car

son

Ch

ico

Co

ntr

a C

ost

a

East

Pal

o A

lto

El C

entr

o

Emer

yvill

e

Gle

nd

ale

Gle

nd

ora

Hig

hla

nd

Ho

llist

er*

Kin

gs

Co

un

ty*

Lag

un

a H

ills

Lake

wo

od

Lem

oo

re

Los

An

gel

es C

ity

ACTIVE LIVING

Active Living * * * * *

Active Transportation * * * * * * * * *

Physical Activity * * * * * * *

Recreation * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE

Chronic Disease Prevention *

Health Disparities



Brownfields * * * * *

Clean Air * * * * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * * * *

Environmental Health * * * * * * *

Environmental Justice * * * *

Toxic Exposures * * * * * *

CLIMATE

Climate Change * * * * * *

Emergency Preparedness * * * * * * * * * *

FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access * * *

Food Safety *

Food Security * *

Healthy Eating * * *

Nutrition *


Aging * *

Clinical Services

Healthy Homes *

Health Services * * *

Human Services * * * * * * *


Mental Health *

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital *

Social Equity * * *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention

Public Safety * * * * * * * * * * * *

Number of Topics 12 5 16 0 7 5 13 9 7 6 8 22 13 0 3 9

% of Topics 39% 16% 52% 0% 23% 16% 42% 29% 23% 19% 26% 71% 42% 0% 10% 29%

APPENDIX C (cont.)


CA (cont.)

Los

Ban

os

Mar

in C

ou

nty

*

Mo

ren

o V

alle

y

Mo

un

tain

Vie

w

Pal

o A

lto

Pla

cer

Co

un

ty*

Ran

cho

Pal

os

Ver

des

Ro

sevi

lle

Sacr

amen

to C

ity*

Sacr

amen

to C

ou

nty

San

Ben

ito

San

Ber

nar

din

o

Co

un

ty

San

Car

los

San

Die

go

Cit

y

San

Jo

se

San

ta P

aula

ACTIVE LIVING


Active Transportation * * * * * * * * * * *

Physical Activity * * * * * * * *

Recreation * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE

Chronic Disease Prevention * *

Health Disparities *

Obesity Prevention * *


Brownfields * * *

Clean Air * * * * * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * * * *

Environmental Health * * * * * * * *


Toxic Exposures * * * * * * *

CLIMATE

Climate Change * * * * * * * * *

Emergency Preparedness * * * * * * * * * * *

FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access * * * * * *

Food Safety * *

Food Security * * *

Healthy Eating * * * *

Nutrition * * *


Aging * * * * *

Clinical Services *

Healthy Homes * * *

Health Services * * * * * *


Infectious Disease Prevention *

Mental Health * *

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital *

Social Equity * * * * *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention *

Public Safety * * * * * * * * * * * *

Number of Topics 5 25 8 7 11 7 2 9 27 0 13 0 6 17 19 7

% of Topics 16% 81% 26% 23% 35% 23% 6% 29% 87% 0% 42% 0% 19% 55% 61% 23%

APPENDIX C (cont.)


CA (cont.) CO CT

San

ta R

osa

Son

om

a

Sou

th G

ate*

Sou

th S

an F

ran

cisc

o

teh

ama

cou

nty

Tuo

lum

ne

Wal

nu

t C

reek

Wes

t H

olly

wo

od

Au

rora

Cas

tle

Pin

es N

ort

h

Fou

nta

in

Gu

nn

iso

n

Dan

bu

ry

Man

sfiel

d

Mas

hat

uck

et P

e-q

uo

t Tr

ibal

Nat

ion

*

Old

Say

bro

ok

ACTIVE LIVING




Recreation * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE


Health Disparities



Brownfields * * * *

Clean Air * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Environmental Justice

Toxic Exposures * * *

CLIMATE

Climate Change * * * * * * * *

Emergency Preparedness * * * * * * * * *

FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access * * * *

Food Safety

Food Security *

Healthy Eating * *

Nutrition *


Aging * * * * * *

Clinical Services *

Healthy Homes * * *




Mental Health * *

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital * * *

Social Equity * *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention *

Public Safety * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Number of Topics 7 11 22 2 11 6 11 9 12 6 5 8 0 11 13 11

% of Topics 23% 35% 71% 6% 35% 19% 35% 29% 39% 19% 16% 26% 0% 35% 42% 35%

APPENDIX C (cont.)


CT (cont.) DC FL

Tho

mas

ton

Wo

od

bu

ry

Dis

tric

t o

f Co

lum

-b

ia

Ala

chu

a C

ou

nty

*

Bel

levi

ew

Del

ton

a

Do

ral

Jack

son

ville

Bea

ch

Lake

Co

un

ty

Mia

mi L

akes

Nas

sau

Co

un

ty

No

rth

Mia

mi

Orl

and

o

Orm

on

d B

each

Po

lk C

ou

nty

Po

rt O

ran

ge

ACTIVE LIVING

Active Living * * * *

Active Transportation * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Physical Activity * * * * * * * * *

Recreation * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE

Chronic Disease Prevention * * * *

Health Disparities * * * *

Obesity Prevention * * *


Brownfields * * * * * * * * * *

Clean Air * * * * * * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Environmental Health * * * * * * * * *

Environmental Justice * * * * *

Toxic Exposures

CLIMATE

Climate Change * * * * * *

Emergency Preparedness * * * * * * * * * * * *

FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access * * *

Food Safety

Food Security *


Nutrition * *


Aging * * * * *

Clinical Services *

Healthy Homes * * * *



Infectious Disease Prevention * *

Mental Health * * *

SOCIAL HEALTH


Social Equity * * *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention

Public Safety * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Number of Topics 6 3 15 27 7 14 4 4 8 6 17 21 11 7 9 14

% of Topics 19% 10% 48% 87% 23% 45% 13% 13% 26% 19% 55% 68% 35% 23% 29% 45%

APPENDIX C (cont.)


FL (cont.) GA HI IA

Pu

tnam

Co

un

ty

Ro

ckle

dg

e

Will

isto

n

Win

ter

Spri

ng

s

Ath

ens-

Cla

rke

Co

un

ty

Car

ters

ville

cher

oke

e

Co

lum

bu

s

Dec

atu

r C

ou

nty

Ro

ckd

ale

Co

un

ty

Ho

no

lulu

An

ken

y

Lan

sin

g

Mar

shal

lto

wn

Sco

tt C

ou

nty

Sio

ux

Cit

y

ACTIVE LIVING

Active Living * * * * * *

Active Transportation * * * * * * * * *


Recreation * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE


Health Disparities

Obesity Prevention


Brownfields * * * *

Clean Air * * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * * * * *

Environmental Health * * * * *

Environmental Justice * * *

Toxic Exposures

CLIMATE

Climate Change

Emergency Preparedness * * * * *

FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access

Food Safety

Food Security

Healthy Eating

Nutrition


Aging * * * *

Clinical Services

Healthy Homes * * * *

Health Services * *

Human Services * *


Mental Health *

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital *

Social Equity * *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention

Public Safety * * * * * * * * * * * *

Number of Topics 6 3 4 6 0 0 10 7 7 10 3 6 9 7 10 8

% of Topics 19% 10% 13% 19% 0% 0% 32% 23% 23% 32% 10% 19% 29% 23% 32% 26%

APPENDIX C (cont.)


ID IL IN

Wes

t D

es M

oin

es

Mer

idia

n

San

dp

oin

t

Ch

amp

aig

n

Gle

nvi

ew

Jolie

t

Mac

hes

ney

Par

k

May

wo

od

McH

enry

Co

un

ty

Mo

un

t P

rosp

ect

Peo

ria

Ro

sco

e

Car

mel

Co

lum

bu

s

Ind

ian

apo

lis

Joh

nso

n C

ou

nty

ACTIVE LIVING

Active Living * * * * * *


Physical Activity * * *

Recreation * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE


Health Disparities

Obesity Prevention



Clean Air * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * *

Environmental Health * * * *


Toxic Exposures

CLIMATE

Climate Change *

Emergency Preparedness * * *

FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access

Food Safety

Food Security

Healthy Eating

Nutrition


Aging * * * * *

Clinical Services *

Healthy Homes *




Mental Health

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital *

Social Equity *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention

Public Safety * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Number of Topics 5 7 3 10 5 2 7 6 0 7 11 7 0 8 9 2

% of Topics 16% 23% 10% 32% 16% 6% 23% 19% 0% 23% 35% 23% 0% 26% 29% 6%

APPENDIX C (cont.)


IN KS KY MA MD

Sou

th B

end

*

Terr

e H

aute

Gre

ensb

urg

Ott

awa*

Top

eka

Rad

clif

f

Bel

mo

nt

Bro

ok

line

East

ham

pto

n

Gro

ton

Nan

tuck

et

Rea

din

g

An

ne

Aru

nd

el

Bal

tim

ore

Co

un

ty*

Bel

Air

Car

olin

e C

ou

nty

ACTIVE LIVING




Recreation * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE


Health Disparities * *



Brownfields * * * *

Clean Air * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * * * *


Environmental Justice *

Toxic Exposures *

CLIMATE

Climate Change * * * * *

Emergency Preparedness * * * * * *

FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access

Food Safety *

Food Security

Healthy Eating *

Nutrition


Aging * * * *

Clinical Services *

Healthy Homes * *


Human Services * * * * *


Mental Health

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital

Social Equity * *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention

Public Safety * * * * * * *

Number of Topics 7 0 9 6 4 6 3 4 7 10 0 4 14 20 10 3

% of Topics 23% 0% 29% 19% 13% 19% 10% 13% 23% 32% 0% 13% 45% 65% 32% 10%

APPENDIX C (cont.)


ME MI MN

Bar

Har

bo

r*

Cra

nb

erry

Isle

s

Cu

mb

erla

nd

Han

cock

Co

un

ty

Alp

ine

Tow

nsh

ip

Bar

ry C

ou

nty

Gra

nd

Rap

ids*

Isab

ella

Co

un

ty

Kal

amaz

oo

Mo

nro

e C

ou

nty

Was

hte

naw

Co

un

ty

Wat

erto

wn

Ch

arte

r To

wn

ship

Car

ver

Co

un

ty

Dak

ota

Co

un

ty

Hen

nep

in C

ou

nty

Sain

t P

aul

ACTIVE LIVING

Active Living * * * * * * * * * *


Physical Activity * * * * * *

Recreation * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE


Health Disparities



Brownfields * * * * * *

Clean Air * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * * * * *



Toxic Exposures * *

CLIMATE

Climate Change * *

Emergency Preparedness * * * *

FOOD & NUTRITION


Food Safety

Food Security

Healthy Eating * *

Nutrition


Aging * * * * * * * * *

Clinical Services

Healthy Homes *

Health Services * *

Human Services * *


Mental Health *

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital

Social Equity * *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention


Number of Topics 9 2 9 10 6 7 10 5 8 13 3 8 0 11 2 6

% of Topics 29% 6% 29% 32% 19% 23% 32% 16% 26% 42% 10% 26% 0% 35% 6% 19%

APPENDIX C (cont.)


MN (cont.) MO MS NC

Sco

tt C

ou

nty

*

St. C

lou

d

St. L

ou

is P

ark*

Vic

tori

a

Lee'

s Su

mm

it

Par

kvill

e

St L

ou

is C

ou

nty

Her

nan

do

Mis

sis-

sip

i

Bla

ck M

ou

nta

in

Bo

on

e

Bru

nsw

ick

Co

un

ty

Bu

tner

Cat

awb

a C

ou

nty

Ch

arlo

tte-

Mec

k-le

nb

urg

Cle

mm

on

s

Co

nco

rd

ACTIVE LIVING

Active Living * * * * * * * * * *

Active Transportation * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Recreation * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE


Health Disparities



Brownfields * * * *

Clean Air * * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Environmental Health * * * * * * * *


Toxic Exposures *

CLIMATE

Climate Change


FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access * *

Food Safety

Food Security


Nutrition


Aging * * * * * * * *

Clinical Services

Healthy Homes * *


Human Services * * * *


Mental Health *

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital *

Social Equity *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention *

Public Safety * * * * * * * * * * *

Number of Topics 11 0 17 9 8 9 0 10 5 6 5 7 6 8 7 13

% of Topics 35% 0% 55% 29% 26% 29% 0% 32% 16% 19% 16% 23% 19% 26% 23% 42%

APPENDIX C (cont.)


NC (cont.) NE NH NJ

Dav

idso

n

Hav

elo

ck

Ired

ell C

ou

nty

Kill

Dev

il H

ills

Mo

rris

ville

Pin

evill

e

Po

lk C

ou

nty

Ral

eig

h

Way

ne

Co

un

ty

Wils

on

Wils

on

's M

ills

Gra

nd

Isla

nd

Lin

coln

Om

aha

Hill

sbo

rou

gh

Mo

ntc

lair

ACTIVE LIVING

Active Living * * * * * * * *

Active Transportation * * * * * * * * * *


Recreation * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE






Clean Air * * * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * * * *


Environmental Justice * * * *

Toxic Exposures * * *

CLIMATE

Climate Change * * * *

Emergency Preparedness * * * * * * * *

FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access * * * * *

Food Safety *

Food Security * *


Nutrition * *


Aging * * * * *

Clinical Services *

Healthy Homes * *

Health Services * * * * *


Infectious Disease Prevention * *

Mental Health *

SOCIAL HEALTH


Social Equity * * * *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention *

Public Safety * * * * * * * * * * *

Number of Topics 13 9 8 13 3 2 9 15 5 11 7 8 2 31 5 4

% of Topics 42% 29% 26% 42% 10% 6% 29% 48% 16% 35% 23% 26% 6% 100% 16% 13%

APPENDIX C (cont.)


NJ NM NV NY OH

Tren

ton

Alb

uq

uer

qu

e

Do

na

An

a C

ou

nty

Cla

rk C

ou

nty

Spar

ks

Was

ho

e C

ou

nty

Mar

lbo

rou

gh

New

Yo

rk

Tio

ga

Co

un

ty*

Cle

vela

nd

Del

awar

e

Fair

fiel

d C

ou

nty

Fran

klin

Co

un

ty

Mia

mi C

ou

nty

Mid

dle

tow

n

Mo

nro

e

ACTIVE LIVING


Active Transportation * * * * * * * *


Recreation * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE


Health Disparities




Clean Air * * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * * *



Toxic Exposures * *

CLIMATE

Climate Change * * *


FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access * *

Food Safety

Food Security *

Healthy Eating

Nutrition *


Aging * * * * *

Clinical Services *

Healthy Homes * *

Health Services * *

Human Services * * * *


Mental Health

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital * *

Social Equity * *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention


Number of Topics 11 0 21 11 7 5 5 0 4 0 0 3 10 9 12 0

% of Topics 35% 0% 68% 35% 23% 16% 16% 0% 13% 0% 0% 10% 32% 29% 39% 0%

APPENDIX C (cont.)


OH (cont.) OK OR PA

Po

wel

l

Up

per

Arl

ing

ton

Wad

swo

rth

You

ng

sto

wn

Alt

us

Cit

y

Med

icin

e P

ark

Still

wat

er

Cen

tral

Po

int

Co

nfe

der

-at

ed T

rib

es o

f th

e

Jack

son

Co

un

ty

Kla

mat

h F

alls

*

Mar

ion

Co

un

ty

Milw

auk

ie

No

rth

Ben

d

Wils

on

ville

*

Alle

gh

eny

Co

un

ty

ACTIVE LIVING




Recreation * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE



Obesity Prevention


Brownfields * * * *

Clean Air * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * *



Toxic Exposures *

CLIMATE

Climate Change * *

Emergency Preparedness * * * * * * *

FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access

Food Safety

Food Security

Healthy Eating

Nutrition


Aging * * * * * *

Clinical Services * *

Healthy Homes * *


Human Services * * * * *


Mental Health *

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital

Social Equity * * *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention

Public Safety * * * * * * * * * * * *

Number of Topics 2 3 6 11 0 7 10 15 7 6 13 0 9 3 9 6

% of Topics 6% 10% 19% 35% 0% 23% 32% 48% 23% 19% 42% 0% 29% 10% 29% 19%

APPENDIX C (cont.)


PA (cont. RI SC TX

Bet

hle

hem

Bla

ir C

ou

nty

Ch

este

r C

ou

nty

East

Hem

pfi

eld

To

wn

ship

East

on

*

Lyco

min

g C

ou

nty

Ro

stra

ver

Tow

n-

ship

No

rth

Kin

gst

ow

n

Bea

ufo

rt C

ou

nty

Ber

kele

y C

ou

nty

Co

lum

bia

Flo

ren

ce C

ou

nty

Jam

es Is

lan

d

Mo

un

t P

leas

ant

Au

stin

*

Co

lleg

e St

atio

n

ACTIVE LIVING

Active Living * * * * * * * *

Active Transportation * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Recreation * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE





Brownfields * * * * * * *

Clean Air * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Toxic Exposures *

CLIMATE


Emergency Preparedness * * * * * * * * * * *

FOOD & NUTRITION


Food Safety * *

Food Security * *


Nutrition * *


Aging * * * * * * * *

Clinical Services *

Healthy Homes * * * * *


Human Services * * * * * * * *

Infectious Disease Prevention * * *

Mental Health * *

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital *

Social Equity * * * *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention *

Public Safety * * * * * * * * * * * *

Number of Topics 0 11 8 11 23 16 6 15 3 9 10 3 14 8 27 6

% of Topics 0% 35% 26% 35% 74% 52% 19% 48% 10% 29% 32% 10% 45% 26% 87% 19%

APPENDIX C (cont.)


TX (cont.) UT VA VT WA

Fort

Wo

rth

*

Pla

no

Hig

hla

nd

Cit

y

Nap

les

Cit

y

Ro

y C

ity

Co

rpo

ra-

tio

n

Uin

tah

Co

un

ty

Ch

esap

eake

Cu

lpep

er

Flu

van

na

Co

un

ty

Bu

rlin

gto

n

Kin

g C

ou

nty

Lib

erty

Lak

e

Mill

wo

od

Po

rt A

ng

eles

Seat

tle

Shel

ton

ACTIVE LIVING

Active Living * * * * * * * * * *


Physical Activity * * * * * * * * * *

Recreation * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE


Health Disparities * * *



Brownfields * *

Clean Air * * * * * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * * * * * *



Toxic Exposures * *

CLIMATE

Climate Change * *

Emergency Preparedness * * * * * * * *

FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access *

Food Safety * *

Food Security *

Healthy Eating *

Nutrition *


Aging * * * * *

Clinical Services

Healthy Homes *


Human Services * * * * * * * *


Mental Health * *

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital * *

Social Equity * * * * *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention

Public Safety * * * * * * * * * * *

Number of Topics 14 9 4 2 8 9 10 8 6 13 17 0 2 13 13 8

% of Topics 45% 29% 13% 6% 26% 29% 32% 26% 19% 42% 55% 0% 6% 42% 42% 26%

APPENDIX C (cont.)


WA WI

Taco

ma

Fitc

hb

urg

On

eid

a N

atio

n*

ACTIVE LIVING

Active Living * *

Active Transportation * * *

Physical Activity * *

Recreation * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE


Health Disparities



Brownfields * * *

Clean Air * * *

Clean Water * * *

Environmental Health * *


Toxic Exposures *

CLIMATE

Climate Change * *

Emergency Preparedness * *

FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access * *

Food Safety *

Food Security *

Healthy Eating *

Nutrition *


Aging *

Clinical Services *

Healthy Homes *

Health Services *

Human Services *


Mental Health *

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital *

Social Equity * *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention *

Public Safety * * *

Number of Topics 10 10 28

% of Topics 32% 32% 90%

APPENDIX C (cont.)


On

eid

a N

atio

n, W

I

Ral

eig

h, N

C

Bu

rlin

gto

n, V

T

Man

sfiel

d, C

T

San

Fra

nci

sco,

CA

Gra

nd

Rap

ids,

MI

Hen

der

son

, NV

Ph

ilad

elp

hia

, PA

Kee

ne,

NH

Cu

per

tin

o, C

A

Dec

atu

r C

ity,

GA

Po

rtla

nd

/ M

ult

no

mah

C

ou

nty

, OR

Sacr

amen

to, C

A

Bal

tim

ore

, MD

New

Yo

rk, N

Y

ACTIVE LIVING

Active Living * * * * * * * * * * *

Active Transportation * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Physical Activity * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Recreation * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE






Clean Air * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Environmental Health * * * * * * * * * *

Environmental Justice * * * * *

Toxic Exposures * * * *

CLIMATE

Climate Change * * * * * * * * * * * *

Emergency Preparedness * * * * *

FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access * * * * * * * * * * *

Food Safety * * *

Food Security * * * * * *

Healthy Eating * * * * * *

Nutrition * * *


Aging * * * * *

Clinical Services

Healthy Homes * * * * * * *




Mental Health * * *

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital * * * * * * * * * *

Social Equity * * * * * * * * *

SAFETY

Injury Prevention *


Number of Topics 25 16 15 15 15 14 14 14 12 11 11 11 11 10 10

% of Topics 81% 52% 48% 48% 48% 45% 45% 45% 39% 35% 35% 35% 35% 32% 32%

APPENDIX D. Public health topics explicitly addressed in sustainability plan


Wes

t W

ind

sor,

NJ

Hay

war

d, C

A

Am

ber

ley

Vill

age,

O

H

Hill

sbo

rou

gh

To

wn

ship

, NJ

Ro

sevi

lle, C

A

Nap

les

Cit

y, U

T

East

on

, PA

San

Car

los,

CA

San

Raf

ael,

CA

Lake

Co

un

ty, I

L

Alb

any,

NY

Hu

nti

ng

ton

Co

un

ty,

IN

ACTIVE LIVING


Active Transportation * * * * * * * *

Physical Activity * * *

Recreation * * * *

CHRONIC DISEASE


Health Disparities

Obesity Prevention


Brownfields *

Clean Air * * * * * * *

Clean Water * * * * * *

Environmental Health * * *


Toxic Exposures * *

CLIMATE


Emergency Preparedness *

FOOD & NUTRITION

Food Access *

Food Safety

Food Security

Healthy Eating

Nutrition


Aging *

Clinical Services

Healthy Homes *

Health Services *

Human Services


Mental Health

SOCIAL HEALTH

Social Capital

Social Equity

SAFETY

Injury Prevention

Public Safety * * *

Number of Topics 9 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 2 0 0

% of Topics 29% 26% 23% 23% 23% 16% 10% 10% 10% 6% 0% 0%

APPENDIX D. (cont.)

Tips on Registering CM ActivitiesProviders of professional development may find the following information useful in registering activities for CM credit, including interpreting and responding to eligibility requirements, writing learning objectives, and requesting law and ethic credit. Please see page 7 for more information.

Tip #1 – Understand the approval process When you register, please share how you as a provider meet our criteria for the content, delivery, and administration of events. We will base our reviews on the information you provide here.

When asked to describe the event or activity please consider to the following questions:

1. How will the event offer a professionally relevant learning experience for a planner (e.g. for a planner with at least 2 years of experience)? 2. How does this event meet a specific-planning related training objective?3. What are the specific training objectives? What do you want attendees to learn from this event?

Sample response:Faced with declining downtowns and neighborhood commercial centers, planners have a need to learn how to bring new life to these areas. The seminar instructs planners on how to develop economic revitalization strategies involving design, zoning strategies, marketing, and partnering. Advanced-level strategies and best practices will be presented and discussed by a panel of experts in the areas of economic development and urban design. The educational purpose is to teach planners how to initiate and implement revitalization strategy of downtowns and mixed use neighborhoods.

Example of how not to respond:This event is designed to meet a specific planning-related objective. The content is designed to meet planning objectives and meets the needs of AICP members. The content is designed to meet a specific planning-related training objective.

Remember, the more detailed information you can provide the better. Visit CM Eligibility for more information.

Tip #2 - Plan aheadRemember, the review process may take up to three weeks. You will be unable to use CM branding in your promotion and the event will not be visible in the CM calendar until your event is approved. Please plan ahead! See page 10 for things to consider before the event.

Tip #3 – Gather the right information We have created a template that will assist you in gathering the correct information for your CM event. By entering this

Planning and Community Health Research Center

American Planning Association

1030 15th St NW, Suite 750W

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: 202-872-0611

Fax: 202-872-0643

[email protected]/nationalcenters/health/

comprehensive planning for public health report was developed under the auspices of the planning and...

Documents